Hospital says Steve Jobs in 'excellent' state following liver transplant

In a bid to settle the question of his health once and for all, Apple chief Steve Jobs has acknowledged that he did undergo a liver transplant at Methodist University Hospital and that he has come out of surgery in good condition.

Program director Dr. James D. Eason justified a transplant of the sort, which can sometimes be controversial due to its uncertainty, by noting that Jobs likely needed it. He was the patient with the greatest likelihood of developing an end-stage liver disease among those with a blood type matching the next available donor liver; as such, he was a prime candidate for the operation.

Even so, as he was the patient with the greatest risk in the waiting line, the Apple co-founder is now believed to have come out of his surgery with an "excellent prognosis" and a strong recovery.

Jobs declined to provide more information on the reasons for the surgery or his current state, but experts may have answered these questions themselves. Physicians speculating about the operation suggest that, like the majority patients who recovered from the form of pancreatic cancer he had in 2004, the cancer had metastasized in his liver, creating the "hormonal imbalance" that ultimately forced Jobs to take leave of his normal office for the past six months.

Tennessee is known to have been chosen for the small size of its transplant waiting list. Where the median number of days a patient would have to wait for a procedure in the US was 306 as of 2006, Tennessee's list was just 48 — enough to virtually guarantee an operation during Jobs' hiatus. Methodist University Hospital also points out that it's one of the ten largest locations offering liver transplants in the US and that Jobs specifically chose the hospital due to its strong reputation for patient survival rates.

While it's not known just how healthy the Apple CEO is or when his surgery actually took place — the most recent leak points to two months earlier — Jobs has purportedly been seen on campus this week. He was also quoted in a press release for the first time in months on Monday, hinting that he's ready to return to work in at least a partial capacity.

Jobs has purportedly been seen on campus this week. He was also quoted in a press release for the first time in months on Monday, hinting that he's ready to return to work in at least a partial capacity.

Long enough to drag "our customers only love glossy screens" Phillip Schiller into a back room somewhere and beat some sense into him.

... Physicians speculating about the operation suggest that, like the majority patients who recovered from the form of pancreatic cancer he had in 2004, the cancer had metastasized in his liver, creating the "hormonal imbalance" that ultimately forced Jobs to take leave of his normal office for the past six months. ...

Again you guys publish this idea that "his cancer returned," yet this very site has published a couple of articles indicating that the type of cancer he has *rarely* metastasises.

Which is it? Either he had the type of pancreatic cancer that rarely recurs or spreads, or he had the kind that spreads in "the majority." It can't be both.

You also mention that the reason for replacing the liver is to decrease the likelihood of liver "disease" but then say that "Physician's speculate" that this is instead due to cancer. WTF?

Did he have his liver cut out because of complications from the previous procedure or because he had cancer? They are completely different things that would give him totally different future outcomes. With the cancer one he's likely to die soon regardless of how successful the operation was, with the other one he could live for decades more.

While he may be in "excellent condition", the sad truth is that transplanted organs require a barrage of daily medication to prevent his body from rejecting the alien organ (alien as in not recognized by his system to be a natural part of his body).

Transplanted livers can last in the best case scenario for up to 10 years. At that time, he will either require a new transplant or we'll have figured a way to reliably grow organs from a patients own DNA, meaning that he'll get a new liver that is his own.

In the meantime, I'm sure Steve will begin preparing for his exit (which could still take years).

Any man with the knowledge that his ilfe could end in 10 years or less would choose family over work. I expect Steve to work at Apple for the next 2 years at most and then perhaps retain a small role as a consultant for the company while he enjoys life with his wife, kids and friends.

Again you guys publish this idea that "his cancer returned," yet this very site has published a couple of articles indicating that the type of cancer he has *rarely* metastasises.

Which is it? Either he had the type of pancreatic cancer that rarely recurs or spreads, or he had the kind that spreads in "the majority." It can't be both.

You also mention that the reason for replacing the liver is to decrease the likelihood of liver "disease" but then say that "Physician's speculate" that this is instead due to cancer. WTF?

Did he have his liver cut out because of complications from the previous procedure or because he had cancer? They are completely different things that would give him totally different future outcomes. With the cancer one he's likely to die soon regardless of how successful the operation was, with the other one he could live for decades more.

You obviously missed the very informative thread on this on AI from a few days ago, where a few seemingly knowledgable onclogist-types explained it well.

(If you scroll down on AI's main page, you should still be able to see it.)

Again you guys publish this idea that "his cancer returned," yet this very site has published a couple of articles indicating that the type of cancer he has *rarely* metastasises.

Which is it? Either he had the type of pancreatic cancer that rarely recurs or spreads, or he had the kind that spreads in "the majority." It can't be both.

You also mention that the reason for replacing the liver is to decrease the likelihood of liver "disease" but then say that "Physician's speculate" that this is instead due to cancer. WTF?

Did he have his liver cut out because of complications from the previous procedure or because he had cancer? They are completely different things that would give him totally different future outcomes. With the cancer one he's likely to die soon regardless of how successful the operation was, with the other one he could live for decades more.

It can be confusing, but here is what one medical specialist by the handle "agrothey" posted on a related thread here a few days ago:

"Liver transplant for neuroendocrine cancer
As a GI medical oncologist, I can assure you that a liver transplantation is one of the options to treat a metastatic neuroendocrine cancer of the pancreas. What most people do not realize is that SJ did NOT suffer from a "normal" pancreatic cancer, but from a rare tumor called "islet cell cancer", which is associated with a much better prognosis than pancreatic cancer. These tumors unfortunately commonly metastasize (seed) into the liver - but a liver transplant can cure patients.
The WSJ story is perfectly plausible and explains some of the issues I was wondering about, e.g. the predefined set time frame of SJ's return to work."

It will help you further if you take the time to read all of agrothey's posts in the thread at this link: